nickschaden.comhttp://www.nickschaden.com
The blog, portfolio, and home base of Nick Schaden, a web designer/developer living in New York.Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:00:31 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9Gaming’s early days of HDR masteringhttp://www.nickschaden.com/2018/12/12/gamings-early-days-of-hdr-mastering/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/12/12/gamings-early-days-of-hdr-mastering/#respondWed, 12 Dec 2018 15:00:31 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=4658This year I finally swapped out my aging 10-year old Sony Bravia TV for a new Vizio P-series. In the intervening weeks of staring at this new screen, well mastered HDR content has been the most impressive improvement. HDR in conjunction with the full array local dimming (FALD) of the TV provides a brightness and contrast boost that surpasses what I experience in NY movie theaters, even well-calibrated ones at the Alamo Drafthouse and Nitehawk. And critically, almost every piece of media benefits from the tech, from TV crime procedurals to Planet Earth II, from Netflix to a la carte streaming rentals and even select Youtube channels.

But that same wow factor hasn’t translated as well to gaming. Of the five HDR capable games installed on my PS4, only two significantly improve the gaming experience.

Admittedly, the high spots are noteworthy. Gran Turismo Sport HDR enhances visuals to the point it feels like a fully transformed game. The paint jobs pop, the neon and sunsets intense. It looks so good that I’ve found myself running time trials just to watch the HDR replays. MLB The Show 19 also shines. On paper, MLB makes the most conservative visual tweaks of the HDR compatible games in my library. But the fine details in the sun reflections off players, the intensity of stadium lights, and extra sky detail generate a more realistic looking game of baseball.

The other three titles are a disappointment. Everybody’s Golf improves the sky but other changes are a wash. FIFA 19 enhances details in the kit uniform and provides a better rendering of stadium atmosphere, but the whites are too bright, leaving visible artifacts on the pitch. And Red Dead Redemption 2 shoves an SDR dynamic range into an “HDR container”, giving a washed out, muddy image as the final effect. It’s the only game with HDR rendering so poor I’ve turned it off entirely.

Speaking of HDR toggling, HDR setup among each game differs widely. On one extreme is Gran Turismo, providing a great two-step setup process. There’s an opening screen to calibrate peak brightness against a checkerboard pattern, followed by multiple test screens of different race conditions to adjust the midpoint gamma. Three others provide far less: FIFA allows you to set peak HDR brightness, but the option is buried at the end of several other video calibration screens. You can’t turn HDR off in FIFA without disabling it on a system level. MLB and Everybody’s Golf provide only a single on/off toggle with no other customization options.

I’m somewhat sympathetic to such uneven results. HDR is still a new technology, and games are very dynamic; I can imagine far more extreme lighting conditions compared to your average movie. And from what I’ve read about HDR treatment in more recent titles (Battlefield V, Spiderman), HDR rendering and its associated in-game setup process will only improve over time. But over the next year I hope to see:

HDR adoption by not just AAA studios, but smaller indie titles as well. HDR becomes the norm, not the exception, for most current generation games.

Every HDR game has an adjustable peak brightness within a full-featured calibration screen. There’s also always an option to disable HDR entirely.

Every HDR title takes full advantage of the format, meaning bright spots trend well above the SDR max of 100 nits of brightness. This doesn’t mean visuals are necessarily “heightened”, with colors saturated off the scale. Like for HDR films, it comes down to the intended look of the game.

HDR is a game changer, a graphical enhancement that can deliver far greater impact on the experience than 4K. But unlike a resolution bump, good HDR requires a new approach to light mastering that based on my brief experience is in its early days. I’m hoping a year from now when gaming’s attention turns to the PS4 and Xbox One successor, we’ll be in far better shape.

]]>http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/12/12/gamings-early-days-of-hdr-mastering/feed/0Post E3: Microsoft’s comeback and an early next generationhttp://www.nickschaden.com/2018/06/27/post-e3-microsofts-comeback-and-an-early-next-generation/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/06/27/post-e3-microsofts-comeback-and-an-early-next-generation/#respondWed, 27 Jun 2018 19:52:07 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=4655E3 was fairly low key this year. In place of big reveals or surprises, we saw a solid suite of games as the current console generation hits its full stride. Two narratives stood out: Microsoft is staying in the game, and we’re getting next generation consoles sooner than I originally expected.

Microsoft’s best presser of the generation

Microsoft’s overall E3 message was one of strength and confidence for both the present and future. Their press keynote reassured Xbox loyalists and anyone else considering a dip into the Xbox ecosystem.

Granted, Microsoft’s keynote on paper shared the same DNA as their last few: trailer after trailer for solid third party games. It’s an obvious move given their competition moved in a different direction at E3 this year: Nintendo stuck to Smash Brothers while Sony focused on first party titles. But this year had especially strong game variety and pacing. The presser got virtually every third party game of interest through next year. Closing with Cyberpunk 2077 — hands down the most buzzed about game at E3 — was a masterstroke.

Packing fifty games in under two hours did more than generate hype. The subliminal message for Xbox fans was clear: don’t worry about our first party studios given how many great third party titles are coming out in the next year.

Beyond trailers that sold the present, Xbox’s strongest pitch was about their future. Late in the keynote Spencer revealed five new internal first party studios, including the acquisition of the well regarded Ninja Theory (Hellblade, Devil May Cry). Considering the high quality output from Sony and Nintendo first parties, this was a smart move by Xbox.

What came next was unexpected (though important): Spencer said the Xbox team was deep at work on “the next Xbox consoles” with oblique references to Microsoft’s computing strengths in AI, cloud, and streaming. Hinting at future hardware without more details is unorthodox, but as strong a sign as we can get today that Microsoft is in the console space for the long run. And Spencer’s usage of the word “consoles”, not “console” was no accident. At the very least it suggests Xbox may spin off in a more experimental direction than arch-rival PlayStation.

Next generation consoles are coming soon

Before E3 I would have guessed the PS5 and Xbox One successor would release no earlier than 2021. PlayStation’s statement suggested a three-year end of life cycle for the PS4. Console hardware sales are still strong, albeit on the decline. And Microsoft and Sony released high profile interim consoles in the form of the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X.

However, at E3 this year, we saw impressive looks at titles with noticeably absent release dates and vaguely targeted platforms. Cyberpunk 2077, **Death Stranding*, Halo Infinite and Dying Light 2 all fit this classification. It reminds me a lot of E3 2012, where the talk of the show as Ubisoft’s debut of Watch Dogs. The gameplay demo got a lot of buzz for its sophisticated open world and AI. The end product, however, was a cross generation release, optimized for next gen consoles.

Combine these forward looking teasers with the fact that we’re five years into this console generation; the last two generations ended after six or seven years. E3 also marked the start of next generation hardware rumors, which invariably pop up a year or two before a console debut. All this evidence suggests we’re getting new consoles in 2019 or 2020.

In one wild card scenario, Sony releases the PS5 in late 2019. That’s an aggressive stance given Digital Foundry suggests a box with a big bump in performance this soon would come at a high cost. Sony would either have to take an aggressive loss on the console or charge an inflated early adopter price well above $400. Based on how lower pricing played into Sony’s favor early this generation, that’s a high ask. Nevertheless, Sony should have several strong first party launch titles for a 2019 PS5 debut. The Last of Us Part II and Ghosts of Tsushima could go cross gen (base game on PS4, an enhanced version for PS5). Sony may also enjoy first mover advantage, given I have doubts Microsoft would be ready to release another console in 2019 so soon after the Xbox One X.

A more realistic, conservative timeline sees both the PS5 and the Xbox One successor out in 2020. Several of the games highlighted this E3 without release dates would debut on the new consoles in mostly cross gen form, with a few titles very early in progress (e.g. Death Stranding) withheld for next gen only.

Timing aside, a battle ready Microsoft with the industry’s focus on future hardware makes for a potentially very exciting upcoming few years.

]]>http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/06/27/post-e3-microsofts-comeback-and-an-early-next-generation/feed/0The pressure is on Microsoft this E3http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/06/07/the-pressure-is-on-microsoft-this-e3/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/06/07/the-pressure-is-on-microsoft-this-e3/#respondThu, 07 Jun 2018 14:22:13 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=4652Microsoft’s E3 presser is a must-see this weekend, and not necessarily for any single game or hardware announcement. It’s because unlike other console manufacturers, they lack any clear long-run trajectory. As the only real wild card for E3 2018, Xbox’s positioning at the show has large implications for its relevancy over the long run.

Conventional wisdom suggests Xbox needs more killer exclusives. Offer the games, and the fans will follow. But at this stage, I don’t see Microsoft capable of making this happen. On paper, they don’t have enough first party studios, and those studios haven’t branched out beyond long-standing IP from the Xbox 360 era.

Nor are Sony and Nintendo standing still. This late in the console cycle, both platforms are hitting their stride. For Sony, the pedigree of The Last of Us II and the hype factor behind Hideo Kojima’s enigmatic Death Stranding sets a high bar. Nintendo is already riding high with a new Zelda and Mario in their back pocket. New Pokemon and Smash Brothers are out later this year with much more to come. Even if Xbox announces four big titles — Halo, Gears, Forza, and a fourth IP surprise — at best Microsoft reaches a draw with Sony and Nintendo.

But Xbox has a larger issue than its game selection: time. We’re now five years into the current console generation. The audiences left on the sidelines without a current gen machine are dwindling. PS4s outsell Xbox Ones at a rate of 2.5 to 1 and Nintendo’s hardware strength going into the holidays is off the charts.

Given this deficit, to stick to the expected — Halo/Gears/Forza to make Xbox loyalists happy, a few indies and 3rd party AAA highlights, more backwards compatibility — won’t cut it. Xbox head Phil Spencer consistently gives one of the most polished, well paced pressers each E3, but it’s not enough.

Instead, Microsoft needs a radical bet to stay in the game. One option doubles down on Game Pass: add more first party titles to the catalog, expand PC compatibility, bundle the service with Xbox Gold, and sell it at a big discount. Another is aggressive purchases of several studios (part of Bethesda or EA?) to ramp up their library quickly. I could even see some left field ideas that lean into Microsoft’s strengths with cloud infrastructure. Players could stream purchased Xbox titles on a smartphone, or sell a new variant of the Xbox One S that’s download only and aggressively priced to compete with both consoles and higher end streaming boxes.

Regardless of exact direction, the element of surprise for Microsoft is essential this year. They have to change the narrative; if we collectively leave E3 with a shrug about Xbox, I’m worried about the venerable brand’s future.

]]>http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/06/07/the-pressure-is-on-microsoft-this-e3/feed/0Effective meeting preparation for engineershttp://www.nickschaden.com/2018/05/31/effective-meeting-preparation-for-engineers/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/05/31/effective-meeting-preparation-for-engineers/#respondThu, 31 May 2018 14:00:37 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=4647Engineers tend to dread meetings, and for good reason: bad ones can be soul crushing. Not only are bad meetings a waste of everyone’s time, it can make the meeting’s organizers look incompetent. Paradoxically, as engineers grow in their career, meetings grow more important. You attend and organize more of them, and as a senior voice in the room, your words can have an outsized impact.

Meetings get a bad rap. Well run ones are an efficiency multiplier, leaving people energized and productive, and a team more cohesive. The right meeting can even turn around an otherwise doomed project.

One of the easiest ways to improve the quality of your meetings is to prepare for them. Without preparation, you’re fighting an uphill battle against context switching; one minute you’re coding and the next you’re in “meeting mode” without clear direction.

Your first priority for any meeting should be to understand its goals for everyone, along with personal goals for yourself. Set aside enough time to write down this information in your “go to” writing tool of choice (e.g. Google Docs, Evernote, a notebook) when preparing for the meeting.

The rest of this post covers one way to do that. My approach is concrete and systematic. It’s not for everyone, but it can pair well with the mental model of many engineers. If you’re struggling with meetings today, I’d recommend giving this workflow a shot.

Meeting goals

The first and usually most important item to capture is the goals for everyone attending the meeting. What does “shared success” look like? That’s what has to happen for virtually everyone, not just one or two people, to feel the meeting was worthwhile.

When in doubt, there’s only a single goal per meeting, but more complex or lengthy meetings may have more. You should be able to summarize each goal in a sentence. And specificity is critical; capture what’s unique about this meeting. That can be difficult when many of your meetings can be recurring, where the goal feels obvious (e.g. you’re starting a sprint). Dig deeper.

The verbiage used to describe most goals boils down to one of four words: learn, clarify, debate, or decide. From those four words we derive four meeting types:

Once you’ve figured out the meeting type, write a complete sentence — subject, verb, the target of the verb — to capture the meeting goal. For example:

The engineers learn how to validate forms through component X.

The team clarifies architectural direction A to the point where we can estimate the engineering weeks to finish it.

The product owners and designers debate three different UI layouts for the login page. They finish the meeting with clear advantages and disadvantages of each.

The engineers decide if we should pay down UI debt on page X in the upcoming sprint, or punt to the next quarter.

Notice how all four examples are specific and concrete. Every one of them could be applicable to an otherwise uneventful meeting you have every week.

This might feel like a lot of formality for just a sentence or two, but nailing meeting goals are critical. Everything in a meeting revolves around goals: the agenda, your point of view, how long the meeting should be, and who the right participants are.

In rare cases, the goals are more complex than you expected and you’ll extend the meeting time accordingly or split into several meetings. More commonly, you’ll realize there isn’t as much to discuss and trim time. Likewise, it’s common you’ll find those critical to a meeting are now optional or don’t have to attend at all.

And if you’re struggling coming up with any concrete meeting goals, it’s a strong signal to cancel the meeting outright. Before attending, pay close attention to meetings with a learning lens. Is the information flowing in just one direction? Will one person be talking the whole time? Ask yourself if it’s more effective to swap out the meeting for some other asynchronous format like Google Docs, Slack, or email.

Personal goals

After you capture meeting goals in your tool of choice, write another sentence or two capturing what you personally want to get out of the meeting.

For “learn” or “clarify” meetings, personal goals might be a specific question you have or subject matter you want to digest or teach:

I’m siding with option A for the rollout plan. Advantages include better server reliability and a less worrisome on call rotation. I know this will take an extra three engineering weeks and bump features but it’s worth the investment.

There are more than a few ways this meeting could go but my only strong feelings are about investing in feature X. We should avoid investment here. I suspect the work would add weeks of tech debt over the long run.

Sometimes personal goals have less to do with the subject of the meeting and more with interpersonal dynamics:

I’ve been crowding out others’ voices in this meeting, I’ll be more judicious with my comments.

Engineer X has been quiet about feature A for weeks now, I’ll proactively try to draw out her opinion more.

Setting aside time

Make sure you set aside time for preparation; I’d recommend five minutes for every meeting you have, regardless of its length and your role in it. Actual prep time varies; sometimes you can capture meeting goals in a minute flat. Other times, you might spend far more on complex subject matters. Obviously, if you set up the meeting or are facilitating discussion you will generally dedicate more preparation time than as just a participant.

Five minutes is a good rule of thumb because it’s the shortest realistic space to account for context switching. If you’re deep in thought on another subject, it can take two minutes just to recall the meeting’s basic facts.

Technical details rarely matter most

For a post aimed at engineers, it may seem odd how little we covered technology. But that’s intentional: the most important preparation for any meeting is rarely technical. Instead, your first priority is understanding a meeting’s purpose and satisfying the people in the room. Nobody will care how much you know about the technology if you don’t understand everyone’s goals and aren’t respectful of their time. Put people and purpose ahead of the code and you’ll be in better shape virtually every time.

]]>http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/05/31/effective-meeting-preparation-for-engineers/feed/0Gaming’s diversity and representation problemhttp://www.nickschaden.com/2018/04/16/gamings-diversity-and-representation-problem/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/04/16/gamings-diversity-and-representation-problem/#respondMon, 16 Apr 2018 14:00:14 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=4641Stories of harassment in creative industries dominated headlines in 2017. Harvey Weinstein’s misdeeds were the spark; ever since there have been countless exposés uncovering deplorable behavior in film, TV, technology, and journalism. Gaming hasn’t gotten as much coverage, but that doesn’t make the industry less culpable. In some ways, it’s even worse. As Xbox head Phil Spencer noted in his recent GDC keynote, if the industry isn’t willing to make changes with regards to diversity, inclusion, and harassment, it risks its survival over the long run.

Representation in-game is a weak spot. Only a handful of the top rated Metacritic titles from last year feature a woman or person of color in any significant role. LGBTQ characters are effectively non-existent. And that trend continues when examining the best selling games over the past five years. Admittedly many games don’t feature a human-like protagonist. You’re playing as an anonymous avatar, a vehicle, or a sports team. But for those that do, diverse representation continues to be a rarity.

The diversity of film actors shows how far gaming has to go. Last year, many critically acclaimed films featured diverse casts: Lady Bird, The Florida Project, Columbus, The Shape of Water, The Big Sick, Mudbound, and Get Out. And several international blockbusters star women and people of color. Wonder Woman, Black Panther, and Star Wars: The Last Jedi each generated 700 million or more at the box office.

TV is arguably even more welcoming and inclusive. Mainstream network shows regularly star Asian, Latinx, and African American actors (Fresh Off the Boat, Blackish, Jane the Virgin). When you dive into streaming and cable, the picture looks even better (Atlanta, The Handmaid’s Tale, Transparent, Orange is the New Black). Again, gaming’s representation pales in comparison.

Then there’s the aspect of audience diversity. When we look at who consumes TV and film, both at home and out at theaters, it’s a wide audience spanning ages, geography, and background. Some genres of TV and film attract toxic fans, but for the most part, filmgoers of any race or sexual orientation go to movie theaters and concerts without harassment.

Gaming is spreading to an increasingly wide audience, but that hasn’t stopped toxicity from being a problem. Playing online often presents an outright hostile environment for women, LGBTQ folk, and people of color. Racist and sexist slurs abound on chat. And while Gamergate is behind us, women and minorities are regularly targeted and harassed across social media and streaming platforms. That’s a problem when online multiplayer is increasingly central to PC and console gaming. Of NPD’s ten best-selling games from last year, at least four are multiplayer online only or predominantly online. All except two (Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey) include an online component.

Some might question why gaming should be singled out given systemic discrimination across industries; the TV shows and films listed here are still the exception, not the rule. White men dominate gaming studio management and engineering staff, but the same is true for film directors, producers, and cinematographers. AAA game studios usually rely on ripped Caucasian guys for their central cast, but so do TV shows and movie blockbusters.

Others might see such critiques as needlessly pessimistic when console and PC gaming businesses are doing so well. The PS4 sold over 76 million units. Nintendo is mounting a big comeback with the Switch. And Steam sales generate billions in revenue each year.

But abhorrent behavior in other industries and a bull market for PS4s doesn’t give gaming a free pass. Gaming shouldn’t require public outrage to take similar introspection. There’s a long road ahead, especially when we examine the makeup of in-game characters and online communities. If gaming wants to grow, to be treated with the same reverence as other critical media, change isn’t an option, it’s essential.

]]>http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/04/16/gamings-diversity-and-representation-problem/feed/0Burying the long tail on Netflixhttp://www.nickschaden.com/2018/03/15/burying-the-long-tail-on-netflix/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/03/15/burying-the-long-tail-on-netflix/#respondThu, 15 Mar 2018 14:00:19 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=4637On slow nights I’ll often watch something on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime. There’s many great films and TV shows available; if you’ve had access to all three services over the last year you could have caught The Witch, Under the Skin, The Handmaiden, and OJ: Made In America. But most content is hard to find, buried under poor suggestion algorithms and even worse user interfaces. Given how our watching habits are consolidating around streaming, that’s a big problem.

Let’s focus on Netflix: the service spent $6 billion on original content in 2017, with plans to release 80 original films this year. However, that rapid pace becomes an undigestible blur when any single title’s discoverability is so limited. Take Macon Blair’s I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore (IDFAHITWA). The Netflix exclusive won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance and got decent reviews elsewhere. Genre-wise, its off-kilter sensibilities are a match for what I’ve seen elsewhere on the service. Or The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected); it’s one of Noah Baumbach’s best films in years, and I watched his earlier feature Frances Ha on Netflix. But browsing through the Netflix app on my Apple TV, IDFAHITWA and Meyerowitz completely flew under my radar.

The problems start with Netflix’s interface. Options on the home page take up less than half the screen, giving a cramped browsing experience. Categories don’t expand beyond a single row which forces users to swipe through titles one at a time.

Netflix’s suggestions aren’t much help either, favoring either Netflix exclusives or otherwise well-known selections. That might initially help IDFAHITWA and Meyerowitz given their exclusive status. Unfortunately, since Netflix adds so much content, most titles drop off the home page pretty quickly. IDFAHITWA lasted for what felt like a day. Meyerowitz, with its bigger star power (Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller), ran for about a week before Netflix dumped it. And search has limited scope. Only movie titles and actor names are reliable search criteria. There’s no “fuzzy” logic; a slight misspell won’t generate results.

Adding to the confusion, Netflix rarely makes it clear when they add or remove titles. They’ll offer a “new release” queue, but it’s mostly exclusives and obvious hits, even if this “new” content is months old. This makes third party sites like (Letterboxd, Instantwatcher, and NYT Watching) a necessity for content discovery.

Netflix’s weaknesses extend to marketing as well. It’s effectively an old-school premium cable model: push the latest exclusives to hook customers on a few titles that can sustain a subscription. Quantity prevails over quality. If a new series or movie fails, fire off another, market, and hope for the best.

Part of me understands this “one size fits all” approach when Netflix positions itself as the future of media. Drawing connections to huge networks like NBC or HBO make the service digestible for investors. Once you’re a paid subscriber though, it doesn’t have to be this way. Netflix isn’t fighting against limited ad space and network blocks, nor it is some scrappy startup. As a huge tech company, they have sizable design and engineering talent. They can have the proverbial cake and eat it too, serving up different film and TV recommendations for very different audiences.

Likewise, Netflix should refresh its UI to improve discoverability and search for long tail content. I’d bet internal analytics would make the service gun shy to change its defaults, but there’s probably a way to add in more customization for power users.

Recent quality control concerns aside – The Cloverfield Paradox and Bright are dreadful – Netflix has some great TV and film content. The best can rival what is in cinemas or on premium cable. And the streaming service deserves credit for bringing smaller, more challenging releases to a big audience. But considering its market share and tech talent, Netflix has a long way to go. We should expect more.

]]>http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/03/15/burying-the-long-tail-on-netflix/feed/0Game Pass 2.0 could be Xbox’s smartest move in yearshttp://www.nickschaden.com/2018/02/21/game-pass-2-0-could-be-xboxs-smartest-move-in-years/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/02/21/game-pass-2-0-could-be-xboxs-smartest-move-in-years/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 15:00:20 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=4632Xbox is in a slump. Sales are solid, but hype and critical attention are behind rivals Sony and Nintendo. It has reached the point where Microsoft could pull out of consoles altogether over the long run with the Xbox One X their final release. But the recent announcement of an improved Xbox Game Pass subscription service (what I’m terming here “Game Pass 2.0”) changes my outlook.

Going forward, all Xbox new release first-party games (e.g. Sea of Thieves, Forza, Halo) will join the subscription service. Previously Microsoft limited Game Pass subscribers to mostly older titles from previous Xbox generations. Seen generously, this is like Netflix offering select first-run movies as they open in movie theaters, while still maintaining a flat $10 a month price. It’s a huge change from what came before.

By focusing on its subscription service, Xbox could sidestep the fragmented game landscape that they’ve faltered on for years. Console hardware sellers have always been exclusives, but Microsoft’s fall well short of the competition. Big budget moneymakers like sports and multiplayer shooters were a sure thing for Microsoft in the Xbox 360 era. Today they are a dicey investment. Budgets are out of control. Gamers are increasingly turning against loot boxes and other questionable microtransactions. Indies can grow to be a phenomenon (PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, Cuphead, Stardew Valley), yet the market is getting oversaturated.

Simply put, Microsoft sees a gaming landscape stacked against them; subscriptions form an alternative path. The subscription model flips the usual pay-per-play economic model on its head. It’s no longer about how many console boxes or $60 games you’re selling; the focus is on retaining and expanding the subscriber base at any cost.

Under this criteria, Xbox diehards should be a straightforward audience to hook. The cost of two games a year to get every future Xbox first party game and many legacy titles is a no-brainer for them. The real test will be signing up gamers elsewhere: casual Xbox One owners, or more serious players from Sony, Nintendo, and Steam that have purchased an Xbox as a second console.

Microsoft has an open playbook to hook this potential audience. The traditional, expected route – huge first party blockbusters – can help, but it’s not the only path to success. Looking at examples set by other services like Netflix and Spotify, Microsoft can take a shotgun approach. They can fire off many smaller bets across different genres to appeal to dedicated niche audiences. An individual title might flop on its own at retail, but if it keeps a committed subset of subscribers signed up, it can work for Game Pass.

Microsoft can also push unorthodox games that would otherwise be a hard sell at retail. Game Pass members have already paid their subscription fee; little risk comes with taking a chance on something new. Sea of Thieves may match this classification; it’s a multiplayer-only “hang out” game that’s an oddball, rarely seen genre (pirates) but potentially ideal for Game Pass subscribers to try. In this way subscriptions introduce a new type of game, the “service seller”, that doesn’t have to play by the same rulebook as traditional retail.

Microsoft still has its work cut out for it to make Game Pass a smash hit. Xbox’s back catalog doesn’t have huge appeal beyond longtime Microsoft loyalists. Subscriptions are unproven territory for AAA gaming. But Game Pass meshes with Microsoft’s platform agnostic business model; if the service catches fire on Xbox I could see the service spreading to PCs or even rival consoles.

And given larger technology trends, Microsoft has reason to be bullish on Game Pass. Subscription services are reshaping how we consume TV, music, film, and applications. Games feel like an inevitable next step. Microsoft, more than any other gaming company, is in a prime position to capitalize on this.

]]>http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/02/21/game-pass-2-0-could-be-xboxs-smartest-move-in-years/feed/0Gaming’s fragmentation: moneymakers, system sellers, indieshttp://www.nickschaden.com/2018/01/25/gamings-fragmentation-moneymakers-system-sellers-indies/
http://www.nickschaden.com/2018/01/25/gamings-fragmentation-moneymakers-system-sellers-indies/#respondThu, 25 Jan 2018 20:47:33 +0000http://www.nickschaden.com/?p=46272017 was a banner gaming year. We saw the release of several of the most critically acclaimed games in years. Nintendo mounted a massive comeback with the perpetually sold out Switch. There was also worrisome news, from Visceral Games’ shuttering to Battlefront II’s loot box saturation and the lack of originality among the year’s top sellers. Big budget gaming is buckling under the weight of costly economics. Unless we see a major shakeup in the industry, games will largely survive under three classifications:

Moneymakers: sports and games as a service

Over the last few years, the cost to develop and market AAA games has skyrocketed yet the $60 MSRP price point remains unchanged. To ensure a return on that risky economics, big studios chase proven franchises in well-established genres.

Mainstream sports games fit this classification perfectly. It’s the one type of game that even casual players regularly buy. And most sports titles have little competition; a single game in each sport dominates sales and usually enjoys exclusive league licenses. The end result makes FIFA. NBA 2K, and Madden dependable top sellers year after year. Other genres can also flourish, in most cases multiplayer-focused action/shooter titles like the Battlefield series.

Once a studio scores a hit, they are increasingly reinvesting in the game with additional content long after its initial release date. This is “games as a service”, and it provides a lucrative long tail for monetization through downloadable content and other microtransactions (most infamously, blind loot boxes.) These are massive moneymakers, in some cases rivaling or exceeding a game’s initial sticker price. FIFA Ultimate Team reportedly brings in billions in revenue for EA each year.
The economic windfall of the games as a service model has reshaped the math. We’re seeing less big titles out of big publishers, but each is increasingly stuffed with DLC and a long-term, post-release revenue strategy.

Hardware sellers: unique IP to sell consoles

Not every big budget game falls into pure moneymaker territory. Many titles share some of their characteristics – well-tested genres, popular IPs – but go far lighter on post-release content. And while Visceral’s death may have been a blow for single player gaming, some AAA games buck the trend and eschew multiplayer altogether.

However, almost all of these titles are first party exclusives. They show off a console’s horsepower (Forza 7, Horizon Zero Dawn), or are famous, in-house only brands (Uncharted 4, Halo 5, Super Mario Odyssey). Given their potential to keep gamers loyal to one console, the revenue pressure isn’t as great. Consequently, these games can take more creative risks.

In fact, some exclusives don’t share traits of moneymakers at all. These titles span a wide range of budgets for a smaller devoted niche market, from Japanese RPGs (Nier Automata, Yakuza 0), to fighting games (Street Fighter V, Killer Instinct) to run and gun platformers (Cuphead). Even with low sales these games market the diversity of a console’s game library.

Minor scale indies: risk takers, oddball genres, less money

There are still pockets for smaller titles to flourish beyond the large scale moneymakers and hardware sellers. They often cover niche material or dabble in otherwise forgotten genres. They court a smaller audience, but at their budget, there’s wiggle room for profitability.

Every week on PSN, Steam, and Xbox Live there are many new titles that fall into this category. Dangerously the market is getting oversaturated; most come and go without much of an impact. Every so often a title breaks out of obscurity into mainstream success like Stardew Valley and Rocket League. In rare instances, an indie makes such an impact it reshapes larger budget gaming, Superunknown’s Battlegrounds the best recent example.

Fewer risks at the high end, obscurity at the low end

As gaming budgets loom and Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo fight over exclusives, I’m worried about a future where only these three game classifications exist.

Smaller indie games offer a lot of creative promise, but Steam is oversaturated. PSN and Xbox Live offer more curation, but most titles still fall through the cracks.

Visceral’s shuttering shows the risk for studios that shift away from the big budget formula. Bethesda may share a similar fate in the long run. The studio releases titles that don’t follow the moneymaker template and all their titles are cross platform (no hardware sellers). Their latest single player narrative releases – Dishonored: Death of the Outsider, Prey, The Evil Within 2 – had underwhelming sales. Wolfenstein II has a warm reception from critics yet based on upcoming price cuts and low streaming numbers, it isn’t selling well.

The narrowing of viable game archetypes has negative effects well beyond a few studios shutting down. It also means less creativity, risk taking, and games that go beyond sports and shooters. There are parallels here to what’s happening in the film industry when big studios churn out increasingly global-minded, safe choices (action sequels, Star Wars, comic superheroes). Yet gaming is a much younger industry without the broad critical respect film, TV or music enjoys. Cynically, I think it’s going to take an external disruption – Apple dives into more traditional gaming, Microsoft exits the console space – for this trend to change. Here’s hoping it’s sooner rather than later.

All stills are property of their respective owners and are used here strictly for educational purposes only. Most shots are combined into a grid format – click or tap to enlarge.

Bright is a flat out bad movie. Its screenplay has too much sophomoric dialogue and tonal whiplash. Unresolved plot threads abound. Any charisma from leads Will Smith and Joel Edgerton rarely registers above the film’s mediocrity.

Bright is also an action film with a ninety million plus budget, yet the shootouts are barely comprehensible. Fights lack a clear sense of continuity, editing, and direction. To examine how and why that is we’ll break down a single action scene midway through the film (watch the scene on Netflix; it starts at 1:01:36.)

Before we dive in, some context: Bright is set in present day L.A. with orcs and elves living alongside humans. Cop Daryl Ward (Smith), orc partner Nick Jakoby (Edgerton), and rogue elf Tikka (Lucy Fry) are on the run. Ward’s team has a magic wand that a street gang and separate group of evil elves lead by Lellah (Noomi Rapace) want for themselves. Naturally the gang and Lellah’s elves are sociopathic killers who won’t hesitate to destroy anyone in their way.

At the scene’s opening, Ward, Jakoby, and Tikka try to shake the gang in a strip club. The street gang enters and immediately opens fire (image A, top left, top right), cornering Ward’s group behind a bar. We see glass shatter based on the gunfire (bottom left) and cut to a wide shot (bottom right) with the shattered glass, Ward, Jakoby, and Tikka. The camera placement and blocking provides continuity; it’s obvious the gang has guns drawn on one side of the bar with Ward’s group on the other.

[imgembed imageid=’4615′ zoomoriginal=’true’ caption=’image A’]

Ward and company jump up to return fire. At the exact same time Lellah and her evil elves enter the scene, and the entire gang turns 180 degrees away from Ward in reaction (image B, top left, top right). We reverse for brief shots on Ward and Jacoby (bottom left, bottom right).

[imgembed imageid=’4616′ zoomoriginal=’true’ caption=’image B’]

As the elves begin to wipe out everyone in the room, the scene’s coherence drops rapidly. We open with a crowded medium shot of a elf killing off a few random gang members (image C, top left). Then another elf materializes out of the sky to jump on a gang member (top right). Seconds later we get rapid cuts of more mayhem from the two elves, from drop kicks (bottom left) to no-look handgun fire (bottom right).

[imgembed imageid=’4617′ zoomoriginal=’true’ caption=’image C’]

While all this is happening, uber-baddie Lellah enters the scene. She stabs the gang leader a few times (image D, top left, top right) and throws him against a wall (bottom).

[imgembed imageid=’4618′ zoomoriginal=’true’ caption=’image D’]

There’s several problems with the camera work after the elves begin their killing spree:

Sudden changes in camera direction. The audience is only familiar with two areas of the club: behind the bar, and in front of the bar. Yet we see elves ripping apart gang members from new camera angles without any established perspective.

Few scene markers. Other than a string of lights around the glass near the bar, most of the club is indistinguishable; it’s all a hazy mix of neon blue and pink. A few more obvious visual markers would help clarify where everyone is in the scene.

Lack of character introduction. The killer elves appear without any clear point of origin. It’s probably meant to underline the elves’ superpowers, but it adds guesswork to who’s in the fight and in danger.

With most of the gang members dead we catch up with Ward, Jacoby, and Tikka running out of an exit in the back (image E, top left). Next, we cut back to elf leader Lellah on the run (top right) as she crashes through a window at the club’s back (bottom left and right).

[imgembed imageid=’4619′ zoomoriginal=’true’ caption=’image E’]

After that we see a SWAT team approach the club (image F, top left). No less than a second later, Lellah ambushes them, killing two SWAT members in hand-to-hand combat (top right). A wide shot reveals four more cops apparently just hanging out (bottom left). The scene wraps up with several tight shots of Lellah spinning around, killing more cops (bottom right).

[imgembed imageid=’4620′ zoomoriginal=’true’ caption=’image F’]

Lellah versus the SWAT team shows other issues with Bright’s cinematography and editing:

Lack of visual continuity between cuts. We cut from Lellah behind the club, to SWAT cops approaching, to Lellah jumping into frame and killing two cops with no visual connective tissue. Where did Lellah hide? Until the first cop dies it’s not even clear the SWAT team and Lellah are on the same side of the club. And we cut from cop to cop fighting Lellah with no greater perspective on the fight or how many cops remain.

Few wide shots. The camera sticks almost entirely to medium length shots with only enough room to squeeze in part of Lellah and a single cop. The audience has little sense of what the other SWAT cops are doing beyond the frame. The tight quarters also dampen any sense of Lellah’s physical speed or fighting skills.

Frantic editing. From the moment we see Lellah running to the back of the club to the point where the fight’s over lasts roughly 50 seconds. There are about 30 cuts in that time frame, an average of 1.67 seconds per cut. Fast cutting can mentally “speed up” the movement, but it makes individual one-on-one fights harder to comprehend.

At a glance this may feel like a minor, throwaway scene yet poor filmmaking here brings down the entire movie:

Ward’s team moves on unchallenged. By scene end Ward and his allies ran out of the back of the club to escape. However, in the moment the audience doesn’t know where Ward is relative to the elves or their immediate action other than a surprised reaction shot. That the elves would take out an entire gang yet ignore an armed Ward and Jakoby a few feet away strains credulity. How did they escape? Did they return fire? Nothing in the filmmaking suggests the team was ever in danger.

Lack of tension and suspense. Granted, super-powered killers make for a lopsided fight. It still doesn’t excuse what appears to be complete inaction by the gang members and SWAT team. Maybe the opposition put up more of a fight, but when a scene is edited to bits with little sense of direction, there’s no way to know.

Boring, repetitive combat. Even confusing fights can be interesting with the right physical presence (great choreography, great stuntmen, or both) and combat variety. Not so here – almost every shot of Lellah and her band of killer elves is an up close blur of a knife stab or kick to an anonymous target.

Admittedly the problems in this scene are commonplace for big budget Hollywood films. Its cause is economics: bad action isn’t hurting box office numbers. Well tested properties and marquee stars mean more to the bottom line. Bright appears to be a case in point: an estimated 11 million got sucked in by the high concept setting with Will Smith all over the marketing.

Despite all this, there are glimmers of hope. Among major studio work, John Wick and Mad Max: Fury Road had wonderfully directed action; the former a box office hit, the latter a critical darling. And outside the U.S. there are many action directors going strong, from new (Jung Byung-gil’s The Villainess) to old (Johnnie To’s Three). Also let’s not overlook the lower budget, often direct to streaming market, which has a lot of promise (Ninja: Shadow of a Tear, almost anything else Isaac Florentine directs). Vote with your dollar; cinema deserves better shot and edited action.

All stills are property of their respective owners and are used here strictly for educational purposes only. Most shots are combined into a grid format – click or tap to enlarge.

Mindhunter shows how simple shot and editing techniques can elevate a series above a routine crime procedural. For this post we’ll look at one standout scene in the final episode of season one. Subtle changes in shot length, distance, and angle heighten emotions. David Fincher directs, Erik Messerschmidt serves as DP, and Kirk Baxter, who’s been Fincher’s primary editor for almost a decade, edits. (Mild spoilers follow.)

On paper the scene is a conversation between two characters that turns threatening. FBI agent Holden Ford (Jonathan Groff) profiles and studies serial killers. Incarcerated mass murderer Edmund Kemper (Cameron Britton) is Holden’s interview subject early in the season. This last scene serves as a reunion after many episodes apart; Kemper tried to kill himself, and Holden visits him in the hospital.

For the first two minutes of their talk, the camera follows a shot reverse shot pattern you’d see on many other shows. Messerschmidt sets up the camera behind the shoulder of each actor. We cut between the two based on dialogue, sticking entirely to wide and medium shots.

[imgembed imageid=’4604′ zoomoriginal=’true’]

After this opening stretch the conversation becomes tense. Kemper “wants an explanation” for what Holden has done with their previous interviews. As emotions run high, we see a shift in camera usage for the next 18 seconds. The camera holds closeups on Kemper and Holden to key in on their heightened emotional state. We also cut away from both characters for the first time. One shallow focus shot on Kemper’s legs underlines his size and foreshadows the physical confrontation about to happen.

There’s also a quick two second cut – the shortest shot in the scene so far – over to the hospital staff, unaware of what’s happening between Holden and Kemper. That shot brevity and shakeup in subject matter is a wake up call for the audience. Kemper may be restrained, but with the staff distracted, it’s an open question if Holden is in physical danger.

[imgembed imageid=’4605′ zoomoriginal=’true’]

Beyond shot length and distance, as illustrated in the examples below, we’ve also shifted camera angle. We see Holden from a more obtuse angle perpendicular to his side that parallels the character’s attempt to withdraw from conflict.

Kemper’s motivations are less clear. The camera’s high angle makes the room’s overhead lights reflect against his glasses. His eyes and attention are obscured. Yet as the cut away shot reveals, Kemper has taken notice of the hospital staff.

[imgembed imageid=’4606′ zoomoriginal=’true’]

However, for the next minute or so of conversation, the shots snap back into the familiar shot reverse shot pattern: over the shoulder, mostly at medium length, cutting on dialogue. Fincher and his crew have let off the gas for a moment, letting the scene breathe.

[imgembed imageid=’4607′ zoomoriginal=’true’]

This respite is short lived. The tension ramps up again as Kemper asks Holden to see wounds from his suicide attempt up close. As Kemper shifts to the front of the bed, a once static camera dollies towards him. Again we see a change in shot rhythm with three rapid fire cuts in under two seconds: on Kemper’s feet as they hit the ground, Holden glancing backward at the hospital staff in alarm, and the staff oblivious to what’s happening.

[imgembed imageid=’4608′ zoomoriginal=’true’]

It’s the camera equivalent of a slap to the audience’s face. Kemper is an active threat and neither the staff nor Holden are clued in. As Kemper talks sitting up, the camera slowly dollies in again, foreshadowing movement ahead. Kemper stares past Holden at the staff area, all but confirming he’s looking for an opening. A reverse shot reveals the staff has left, and with a few rapid fire cuts Kemper jumps up, now blocking Holden’s exit.

[imgembed imageid=’4609′ zoomoriginal=’true’]

We’re near the end of the scene. Some extreme low angles aside, it’s left on the actors to carry the final moments through more conventional shot reverse shot patterns.

If we review the camera techniques and editing choices in this scene, little calls attention to itself. A camera turns 30 degrees or cuts to new subject matter. Instead of a slower cut to follow the script, we cut rapidly based on movement and character attention. Yet there’s a precision to this work – the blocking, the cuts, the rhythm – that’s emblematic of Fincher’s talented feature length work.

Furthermore, it’s precision that’s largely consistent throughout Mindhunter. Between work here and other series like The Handmaid’s Tale and Mr. Robot, we’re at the point where TV shows regularly match (if not outclass) big budget movies in the editing and cinematography department. I’m all for it – better work raises the bar for everyone.